Veritas Rex

Traditional marriage dealt a blow today in California

In a blow to traditional marriage, California's gay marriage ban has been overturned today by the state's top court.

So for all of you out there who still buy the argument that a Marriage Amendment in Indiana is redundant, there is no more room to hide.  Also note the quote at the end of the article (emphasis added).  Apparently, activists in California fully intend to use this decision to force other states to recognize gay marriages.

We told you so.  But this is one time I wish we would have been wrong.

But alas, some folks like Pat Bauer and Terri Austin will still try to make the case that our docile gay marriage proponents in Indiana would never think of trying (again) to overturn our laws.  Pat Bauer may trust them, but I don't.   This strategy is sure to be used in Indiana (again) to attempt to overturn our law through the only means available to gay marriage supporters- the courts.  Because we are without a marriage amendment, we may soon be hostage to the same court system that banned the word "Jesus" from the Statehouse.

California's Top Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco. (emphasis mine).

Obama going for the Evangelical vote

CBN news posted the pictured flier on their blog yesterday.

Let's see what the left's response to this will be.  They heavily criticized Huckabee for his "subliminal cross" over the head in an Iowa ad.  Will they go after Obama for his less than subliminal message? 

Personally, I have no issue with it.  Just like in an earlier post where I said the same thing about the Demmies campaigning for black votes in churches.  The double standard, however, is appalling.

Peterson joins Seminary Board

I don't know much about this group, but the Indianapolis Star is reporting that former Mayor Bart Peterson has joined the board of the Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis.

Peterson will join the board of trustees of the Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis on July 1.

The Northside seminary is affiliated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) but has faculty and students from 40 denominations. Peterson has been a longtime member of Second Presbyterian Church on the Far Northside. The seminary is a graduate school offering degrees in theology, ministry and counseling, among other things.

In a statement released by the seminary, officials said they hope the mayor's experience establishing charter schools and his promotion of the arts will mesh with the school's goal of helping students understand the relationship between religion and the arts. He will also work closely with the seminary's advancement committee, which is involved in fundraising and promotion.

Keeping Teens Safe: How the intact family buffers against teen substance abuse

From the Heritage Foundation:

1.  Cigarette use. Teens in intact families are less likely to initiate cigarette smoking compared to peers in non-intact families. full details

2.  Cigarette use. Teens in two-parent families reported, on average, lower levels of cigarette smoking than peers in single-parent families. full details

3. Alcohol abuse.  Teens in two-parent families reported, on average, lower levels of drinking than those in single-parent families. full details

4.  Alcohol abuse. Teens in intact families are less likely to abuse alcohol than peers in non-intact families. full details

5. Alcohol and marijuana use.  Teens who lived in intact families during early adolescence are less likely to initiate alcohol and marijuana use than peers who lived in non-intact families.  full details   

6.  Illicit drug use.  Teens in intact families are less likely to use illicit drugs other than marijuana compared to peers in non-intact families. full details   

7.  Illicit drug use (European teens).  European teens in intact families are less likely to use illicit drugs than peers in non-intact families. full details

8.  Cocaine use.  Individuals from intact families are less likely to use cocaine compared to peers from non-intact families. full details   

9.  Drug abuse.  Teens in intact families are less likely to abuse drugs compared to peers in non-intact families. full details 

10.  Behavioral problems.  Teens in intact families are less likely to exhibit behavioral problems such as binge drinking than peers in blended or divorced single-parent families. full details

D'Souza debates Peter Singer

www.tothesource.org has video of Dinesh D'Souza's recent debate with Peter Singer.  Nigel Cameron has a summary:

I have debated life and death with Singer. In this latest debate, Dinesh d’Souza tackled him on his denial of the existence of God. Thousands gathered in a gym at Biola University’s campus outside Los Angeles to watch the show. Singer is not simply a theoretician; he defends infanticide and euthanasia, and regards the “sanctity of life” as a mistake. He is something of an extremist. It might be unfair to call him a fundamentalist utilitarian. But if I were being unfair that is what I would call him. He drives widely-held liberal ethical views harder and further than anyone else in the public arena.

Is there a God? D’Souza opened with the 20th century’s litany of atheist crimes – far worse, he noted, than whatever crimes can be attributed to religion, even including the Inquisition, 9/11 and Islamist violence. Hitler and Stalin and Mao and the rest had demonstrated the bankruptcy of their atheist tenets. Singer countered that the debate was not about the bad things that atheists do, but whether God exists at all. Yet he too focused on evil to make his case – the classic case against God, that asks how a world so beset with pain and suffering could have been made by a God who is good. As an add-on he instanced the way in which the Old Testament presents a God who commits and approves genocide; and the New presents a Jesus who expected his Second Coming to happen any time (and was therefore wrong).

D’Souza laid out his rationale for theism: the universe had a beginning; the “laws of nature” had (as Stephen Hawking has said) to be just-so in order for life to arise and flourish. Singer countered that the universe may have had no beginning; that if God made it then where did he come from?; and that scientists do not all agree with Hawking’s contention.

And the debate flowed on, with questions from the audience – some from Christians wanting to underline D’Souza’s case, some from Singer fans, and yet others from unpredictable directions. What did Singer think of the idea that suffering in animals (a big theme of his in his argument against a good God) can be explained through reincarnation - justice winning out as creatures come back to atone for sins in past lives? Singer laughed this off as an incredible theory, and asked what it would mean for a kangaroo to die of thirst because it had been Hitler in a former life. D’Souza called Singer to account for this easy dismissal, and argued that a major theme of all religions is that of cosmic justice: that fairness will, in the end, win out; that what seems unjust in the here and now will one day be set to rights. As Singer noted, atheists don’t find evil to be a problem that needs to be explained; they do not like it, but it is just there.

Did either side win? If I were grading the debaters, I would give them a draw. They were both spunky without being aggressive, and the tennis match of Q and A was well balanced as arguments were raqueted across the podium. Their theme, the greatest theme in the world, was not resolved by a knockout blow. And the audience was reminded, perhaps, that when Jesus debated the Scribes and the Pharisees, and Paul the philosophers on Mars Hill, however compelling their case for belief, they could not compel its acceptance. Some joined the believers; some did not.

So it should not come as a surprise that many leading men and women of our day – the cultural elites who set the pace in our nation and shape the lives we lead – are not people of faith. As Singer pointed out, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, the two greatest philanthropists in history, are not believers. It is all too easy for Christians to take the view that the unbeliever is not only wrong, but stupid; that the arguments all flow one way; that apologetics, properly done, will sweep all before it. Which is, of course, nonsense – else Jesus and Paul, the Great Debaters of the first century, would have won the world at their first encounter. The unbeliever can make a good case. He can argue back, probe the logic of belief, raise the hard questions like Job did (as D’Souza pointed out), long, long ago.

That’s why we have to debate. We are not afraid of the facts; not perturbed by the skills of those with whom we disagree; not unwilling to trade argument and explanation with the smartest minds and the shrewdest tongues. The assumptions of our once-Christian culture have begun to shift. Time was when it was hard to be an atheist, as the Christian mind was embedded in the culture. Now it is the believer who finds it hard to get a hearing, and harder still to make our case.

But make it we must. We talk too much to ourselves, and too little to the wider world. We have no option but to raise our voices and articulate dissent in a society whose defining terms are now post-Christian. Like the dissidents in Soviet Russia we must not be silent. World and church alike must hear our voice, until like that evil empire the godless structures of the secular mindset begin to crumble as we state, and keep on stating, the truth of Jesus Christ; in season, and out of season.

Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor.

There's a new book out, called Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor.

From One News Now's review:

Spencer agrees there has been some global warming, but in his book he defends the argument that the warming is due to natural weather cycles.

"Global warming might well just be part of a natural cycle, and that's what I hear from the public a lot," he shares. "They have this intuitive feel that global warming could be part of a natural cycle. The first thing I wanted to do with the book was to support that view with some basic science, saying, 'Hey look, this is how weather basically works. Here's what we know; here's what we don't know -- and you're being misled by the media,'" Spencer points out.

On the flip side, Spencer argues that even if manmade "catastrophic" global warming were true, all the so-called fixes that are touted by Al Gore and the media amount to pandering. "Al Gore's suggestion at the end of his film -- that just buying compact fluorescents, and buying hybrid cars, and turning the light off when you leave the room is going to fix this problem -- is just pandering. And it's going to have no affect on future global temperatures," Spencer contends.

UMC church upholds traditional marriage

As a follow up on last week's post regarding the UM church.

The Institute on Religion and Democracy
April 30, 2008                                                                              

United Methodists Vote to Uphold Traditional Marriage
“The vote today in affirmation of traditional marriage represents the will of the international United Methodist Church.”

—Executive Director of UMAction Mark Tooley

Ft. Worth, Texas–On Wednesday, April 30 around 5:30 p.m. the United Methodist General Conference delegates voted on what is considered one of the most controversial issues before the world-wide church body. The delegates voted down the committee report that would change The Book of Discipline to explicitly condone homosexual practice. The Minority Report that was passed by a vote of 501-417 affirms not only that marriage is between a man and a woman but that marriage is a “covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.” The conference, United Methodism’s chief rulemaking body, is a denominational gathering that occurs every four years and brings together delegates from around the world.

Mark Tooley, Executive Director of IRD’s UMAction Committee, commented:

“The vote today in affirmation of traditional marriage represents the will of the international United Methodist Church. Those who demand acceptance of homosexual behavior maximized their campaign this year knowing it was their last chance to win in United Methodism.

“The African and other over-seas delegates represented the margin of victory for the current church stance on marriage and sex. This year they comprised almost 30 percent of the total delegates thanks to their church growth and membership decline in the U.S.  The internationals may comprise 40 percent in 2012.

“Africans and other international United Methodists in coalition with Evangelicals in the U.S. are working for a renewed denomination faithful to historic Christian teaching, and culturally transformative instead of culturally accommodating.”

Shocker: Conservative wins London Mayor's race

This is encouraging news for Europe.  Boris Johnson, Conservative party candidate for Mayor of London, was victorious on Election Day.

From BBC News:

Mr Johnson's victory crowns the Conservative Party's May Day local election wins in England and Wales.

He said he hoped it showed the party had changed "into a party that can be trusted after 30 years with the greatest, most cosmopolitan, multi-racial generous hearted city on earth".

Mr Livingstone's defeat ended what Gordon Brown called a "bad" day for Labour, in which it suffered its worst council results for 40 years.

Bill Maher still has his job

Gary Bauer has an editorial in Human Events this week that is worth discussion.

Compare and contrast:

Example 2: Last year, radio “shock jock” Don Imus made an inappropriate and implicitly racist comment about the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team.

The result: Imus’s three-word remark landed him on the cover of numerous magazines, and he was lambasted by everyone from Al Sharpton to many of the presidential candidates. Imus’s hugely popular radio show was canceled, even after he apologized profusely.   

Example 3: Last week, a few days before Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to America, TV talk show host Bill Maher went on a profanity-laden tirade against the Pope and the Catholic Church. On his HBO Real Time program, Maher claimed that the Pope “used to be a Nazi,” and called the Catholic Church a “child-abusing religious cult” and “the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia.”

The result: (Cue sound of crickets chirping.)

I am not a Catholic, but as a Christian I consider the Pope my brother in Christ.  So I am inclined to get defensive over statements like this. 

Either way, however, I've long been confused by our country's attitude towards some of these issues.  We are more Christian than not Christian.  Yet we are largely inclined to allow folks like Maher to make statements like this while at the same time destroying people like Imus for his statements.  I consider them both equally offensive.  So why the difference?

It could be the media who report on these things.  They tend to generate most of the frenzy around issues like this and also tend to yawn over anti-Christian bigotry.

It could also be some sort of complacency from Christians who don't fee that the Catholic church is harmed much by what Maher says.  I happen to agree that this is true, but I don't think Imus' view about anything is all that important either.

So I'm going to blame the media.

Our Congratulations...

The Star reported on Saturday that Jim Buck, a reliable Conservative in the Statehouse, is replacing Jeff Drozda.

State Rep. Jim Buck, Kokomo, today was chosen in a Republican caucus to replace Jeff Drozda, according to Ron Thomas, a county GOP leader who served as a watcher during the vote counting.

Buck won the caucus on a single vote, with 68 votes. Contender David Mueller, a Westfield Washington School Board member and an entomologist, came in second with 15 votes. The caucus was held at Republican headquarters in Kokomo.

Our Congratulations to Jim Buck.  Senator Jeff Drozda was one of my favorites.  Only someone like Jim Buck could manage to fill his shoes adequately.

Barbara Boxer objects to Pope resolution

Barbara Boxer takes on a resolution honoring the Pope- and wins.  I agree with the sentiments of the writer- with Obama's "Christians are bitter" statement and this attack on the Pope, it gets harder for Democrats to claim they aren't anti-religion.

The Wall Street Journal Political Diary is a paid service.  You can subscribe here to read the entire email.

Boxer Versus the Pope

You wouldn't think there would be much to criticize about Pope Benedict XVI's splendid and uplifting visit to Washington. But leave it to Senator Barbara Boxer of California to spoil the celebration and aura of high spirits, nonpartisanship and good will. The trouble started when Senators Sam Brownback of Kansas and Robert Casey of Pennsylvania sponsored a Senate resolution to honor the Pope and his visit to the nation's Capital. The resolution pays tribute to the Pope's message of love and compassion. It also recognizes the "vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty."

The resolution also contains language about the "power of hope over despair and love over hate." All very noncontroversial stuff.

Except for one clause that stated: "Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life." This is a statement that perhaps 99 out of 100 Americans would agree with, and even celebrate. But Senator Boxer huffed that this language hinted toward an endorsement of the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion. As one Senator told us in confidence: "There was not a single word or phrase of the resolution mentioning abortion, or life beginning at conception, or of the unborn. What Boxer objected to was the word 'life.'" She demanded that the phrase "the value of each human life" be, well, snuffed -- or else there would be no resolution at all.

Senate Republicans in particular were enraged by the Boxer protest. Many wanted to call her bluff and make her complaint public so Catholics could see first-hand an act that smacked of, at best, bad taste, at worst, bigotry. But with the clock running on the Papal visit and in the spirit of cooperation, Senators Brownback and Casey relented. The resolution passed without the "objectionable" passage about "the value of each human life."

"I wish the Senators had stood up to her," says Father Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute. "What have we come to where the term 'value of life' is not worthy of inclusion in a Senate resolution?"

Ironically, this dust-up happened just a few days after Barack Obama's swipe at religion in Ms. Boxer's backyard of San Francisco. Democrats have tried to reassure Christians in particular that the party isn't hostile to church-goers, but Ms. Boxer's antics this week make one wonder.

Michael Moore: I endorse Barack Obama

After first endorsing the Castro and the Cuban health care system, Michael Moore is now endorsing Barack Obama.

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

Well, fellow conservatives, we now know who is the most extreme liberal of the two Democrats.  Barack Obama has sealed the title with his ruthless pro-abortion position and by earning the "nutty wack-job Bush planned 9-11" vote.

I never thought I would say this, but I am now convinced that Hillary Clinton is the conservative Democrat running for President- by far.

Barack Obama's Elitism

I know I'm way beyond late on this issue, but it's still more than relevant- and not just because Hillary Clinton needs it to win Pennsylvania (and perhaps the Hoosier state as well).

Here's what The Huffington Post revealed that caused such a stir about Barack Obama.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I won't dwell on how offensive it is to have my faith reduced to some sort of gut response to displeasure.  However, I do find this another great example of Barack Obama's elitism- which seems to reveal itself in a distaste for our culture.  These statements are a disturbing look into what kind of leader Barack Obama will be.

Here's the evidence thus far:

1. Michelle Obama says that she's never been proud of her country before Obama's candidacy.
2. Obama seeks spiritual leadership from a man who says US is responsible for 9-11.  He also says that God should damn America.
3. Barack Obama doesn't salute the flag or wear a flag pin.
4. Obama thinks that people are religious or pro-gun because they are bitter.
5. Obama thinks that babies are punishment for sex.

Obama may be running on a message of Hope, but that may not be his biggest contribution to our culture.

Study: Link between family structure and early adult outcomes

The Heritage Foundation links to a study on www.familyfacts.org that highlights the affects of divorce on children- including lower levels of educational attainment, lower annual earnings, and less prestigious occupations by age 26.

Compared to individuals from intact families, those living with divorced single parents or in stepfamilies at age 14 and did not experience any changes in their family situation during late adolescence (between the ages of 14 and 18) had, on average, lower levels of educational attainment, lower annual earnings, and less prestigious occupations at age 26. The two groups had similar chances of having ever attended college and living poverty at age 26. Compared to individuals in intact families, those living with divorced single parents or in stepfamilies at age 14 but experienced changes in their family situation during late adolescence reported, on average, worse outcomes on college attendance, educational attainment, income, poverty status, and occupational prestige. The negative effects of living in non-intact families that experienced family transitions during late adolescence appeared to be twice as large as the negative effects of living in non-intact families that did not undergo any family structure changes during late adolescence relative to growing up in intact families.

A "Faith-Based" Initiative

While liberals complain about public money to religious institutions they are enthusiastically pumping money into America's number one abortion provider- Planned Parenthood.  According to the Family Research Council, $356 million of Planned Parenthood's $1 billion budget is from tax dollars.

FRC is encouraging individuals to send a letter to the President with the following text:

Dear President Bush,

We are writing you because of a lingering issue that has undermined your Administration's consistent commitment to ensure that federal funds deployed for family planning projects not be used to promote abortion as a method of family planning.

For seven years the Clinton-era regulations governing Title X family planning services have continued. One thing that most Americans can agree upon is that abortion is not a form of family planning. Yet, these Title X funds continue to be used by abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood to promote abortion despite the plain statutory provision from 1970 banning such use.

Regulatory changes promulgated under President Reagan clarified the law that Title X recipients may not refer for abortion or combine family planning services with abortion services. These regulations were defended by President George H.W. Bush and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan (500 U.S. 173) in 1991. Unfortunately, by the time they were being enforced, President Clinton took office and rescinded these pro-life regulations. He then implemented statutorily unsupported regulations that require recipients of Title X funding to refer for abortion. Moreover, these regulations allow the collocation of abortion clinics with their affiliated Title X family planning clinics - in some cases utilizing the same waiting rooms, staff and facilities. More than a minimal economic separation between abortion providers and family planning clinics is warranted.

We respectfully ask that you make the necessary changes to the Title X regulations to prevent U.S. taxpayer funds from being used to promote and facilitate abortion. Collocation of family planning and abortion facilities sends the wrong message, defies Congressional intent, and should not be allowed. Mandatory abortion referral policies cannot be squared with the intent of this program to reduce and not to promote abortion. Changes to the Title X regulations are still possible. We ask you to make the much- needed changes to ensure that federally supported family planning services are separated from abortion services.

Democrat Primary for Governor 2008: No choices for pro-family voters

We were forwarded this email from a friend about a month ago.  I don't think we were the target audience.

You are cordially invited to a cocktail reception for the Indiana Stonewall Democrats

featuring a joint appearance by Indiana’s Democratic candidates for Governor
Jim Schellinger and Jill Long Thompson

at the home of Jackie Nytes and Michael O’Brien
3444 Washington Boulevard
Indianapolis

Friday April 4, 2008, 7:00 pm
Please join us to raise funds for Indiana Democratic Candidates supportive of LGBT Hoosiers

Tickets: $75 General Reception Ticket

$150 Supporter Ticket (includes reception, picture with Schellinger/Thompson, and program acknowledgment).

Indiana Stonewall Democrats (ISD) is the state organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender Democrats and their friends. ISD is committed to improving the record of the Democratic Party and educating voters about the vast difference that exists between the two major parties on issues of importance to our communities.

The liberal media turns on the Clintons

MSM, circa 1999:  Bill Clinton is a hero.  He had beaten back the horrible Republicans and their smear machine.  Hillary Clinton is a saint and soon-to-be Senator.  Clinton is the first black President and perhaps the best President since Washington.

MSM, circa 2008:  Bill and Hillary Clinton are pathological liars.  Bill Clinton is a racist.  Has Ken Starr took over control of the National Press Club?

From Carl Bernstein:

What will a Hillary Clinton presidency look like?

The answer by now seems obvious: It will look like her presidential campaign, which in turn looks increasingly like the first Clinton presidency.

Which is to say, high-minded ideals, lowered execution, half truths, outright lies (and imaginary flights), take-no prisoners politics, some very good policy ideas, a presidential spouse given to wallowing in anger and self-pity, and a succession of aides and surrogates pushed under the bus when things don’t go right. Which is to say, often.

And endless psychodrama: the essential Clintonian experience that mesmerizes the press, confuses the citizenry, confounds members of both parties in Congress (not to mention the Clintons themselves, at times) and pretty much keeps the rest of the world constantly amused and fixated.

Such a picture of Clinton Redux is, by definition, speculation. But it is speculation based on the best evidence at hand: the demonstrable and familiar record of Hillary and Bill Clinton coupled together in Permanent Campaign-mode for a generation, waging a continuous fight on the national political stage since 1992, an unceasing campaign for the White House, for redemption, for their ideas (sometimes) and for themselves (almost always), especially in 2008.

If you liked Jimmy Carter, you'll love Barack Obama

In a preview of Barack Obama's foreign policy, Jimmy Carter announced that he will be meeting with Hamas over the objections of the Bush administration.

"The position of the government is that Hamas is a terrorist organization and we don't negotiate with terrorists. We think that's a very important principle to maintain," Hadley said. "The State Department made clear we think it's not useful for people to be running to Hamas at this point and having meetings."

Carter demurred.

"I feel quite at ease in doing this," he said. "I think there's no doubt in anyone's mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process."

Although he said the meeting would not be a negotiation, he outlined distinct goals.

"I think that it's very important that at least someone meet with the Hamas leaders to express their views, to ascertain what flexibility they have, to try to induce them to stop all attacks against innocent civilians in Israel and to cooperate with the Fatah as a group that unites the Palestinians, maybe to get them to agree to a cease-fire - things of this kind," he said.

The State Department says it advised Carter twice against meeting representatives of Hamas, which Washington considers a terrorist organization.

"I find it hard to understand what is going to be gained by having discussions with Hamas about peace when Hamas is, in fact, the impediment to peace," Rice said Friday, after reports of the planned meeting surfaced.

Carter said he'd be meeting Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudi Arabians and others "who might have to play a crucial role in any future peace agreement that involves the Middle East."

Asked whether it was right to meet a group that has not renounced violence or recognized Israel, he said, "Well, you can't always get prerequisites adopted by other people before you even talk to them."

Pressure to drop the meeting has come from his own party. Democratic Reps. Artur Davis of Alabama, Shelley Berkley of Nevada, Adam Schiff of California and Adam Smith of Washington state wrote a letter to Carter saying the meeting could confer legitimacy on a group that embraces violence.

"I've been meeting with Hamas leaders for years," Carter said.

The Carter Center said his "study mission" was taking him to Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan this week.

Carter, a broker of the 1978 Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel, won the Nobel Peace Prize for his conflict mediation as president and since.

As president, Carter led the boycott of the Moscow Olympics in protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. "That was a totally different experience in 1980, when the Soviet Union had brutally invaded and killed thousands and thousands of people," he said, rejecting the idea of boycotting the Beijing games to protest China's crackdown in Tibet. He did not address whether just the opening ceremonies should be boycotted.

Barack Obama: Babies are punishment for sex

Recently we covered Barack Obama's remarkably controversial pro-abortion philosophy.  Here's a glimpse into his attitude on the issue.

Senator Obama (D-Illinois) was giving his opinion on abstinence-only education at a recent town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, when he said: "Look, I got two daughters -- nine years old and six years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16."

What's even worse than thinking that babies are punishments, is equating them with an STD.  Anyone want to make the case that our acceptance of abortion doesn't devalue human life?

Please don't be winning, please

We are a little late on this, but we couldn't believe it when we saw it.  Even before Crocker and Petraus testified, Nancy Pelosi was telling them what to say!  Congressional Democrats warned military leaders in Iraq:  "Please don't tell us we're winning.  Please!"

A few days before General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker appear before House and Senate committees to deliver their latest update on Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes clear what she hopes they will not say.

In a news conference together with the chairmen of the House committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs, she refers to the recent fighting in Iraq's southern port city of Basra, saying Petraeus and Crocker should not attempt to put a positive spin on events.

Don't worry Speaker Pelosi, I'm sure no matter what military leaders say there will always be a way for you to surrender in Iraq.

Expelled: No intelligence allowed.

Ben Stein's got a new movie coming out.  It's about the discrimination scientists receive for making arguments in favor of intelligent design.

Never fear, Veritas Rex is here

Newspapers are struggling to pay the bills with dropping ad revenues, according to the Newspaper Association of America.

The newspaper industry has experienced the worst drop in advertising revenue in more than 50 years.

According to new data released by the Newspaper Association of America, total print advertising revenue in 2007 plunged 9.4% to $42 billion compared to 2006 -- the most severe percent decline since the association started measuring advertising expenditures in 1950.

The drop-off points to an economic slowdown on top of the secular challenges faced by the industry. The second worst decline in advertising revenue occurred in 2001 when it fell 9.0%.

Total advertising revenue in 2007 -- including online revenue -- decreased 7.9% to $45.3 billion compared to the prior year.

But don't fear, fair readers.  Veritas Rex is here to deliver you the truth, unfiltered.

Liberals are generous, but only with other people's money

This article, written by George Will, is a gem.  It seems like our liberal friends, constantly accusing us of being uncharitable and uncaring, are in fact engaging in projection.

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.

The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data.

They include these findings:

oAlthough liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

oConservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

oResidents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

oBush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

oIn the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

oPeople who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

And for those new atheists, who ascribe only pain to religious affiliation, we have these facts.

The single biggest predictor of someone’s altruism, Willett says, is religion.

It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks’ book says, “the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have ‘no religion’ has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s.”

America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative.

One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one — secular conservatives.

Obama's Top Ten Reasons for supporting infanticide

With Obama, we get an articulate and engaging candidate, but we are still getting a liberal when it comes to abortion.  In fact, he's far to the left of most Democrats who supported the Partial Birth Abortion ban and also oppose infanticide.

He has taken positions in support of both infancticide and Partial Birth Abortion.  But his rational continues to change.  Either way, I would not have thought that anyone could make Hillary Clinton look conservative, but he does.

From WorldNetDaily.

Following are 10 excuses Obama has given through the years for voting "present" and "no" on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or BAIPA.

10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:

I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …

I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to mothers.

Before voting "no" for a second time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:

What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that.
8. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative.

An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against BAIPA because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."

7. Anyway, doctors don't do that.

Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed BAIPA because "physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions."

6. Obama apparently read medical charts and saw no proof.

Also, during a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said "there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee," according to the Illinois Leader.

5. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue.

During his U.S. Senate contest against Obama, Alan Keyes famously said:

Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died. ... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.
Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes' condemnation as a blanket statement against Obama's pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes was pointedly discussing infanticide.

Nevertheless, induced labor abortion, the procedure that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive, must be included as one Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes as he recounted in a July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed:

... [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and … I can't impose my religious views on another.
4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle.

In that USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a "typically liberal response," and revised it:

But my opponent's accusations nagged at me. ... If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
3. Introducing legislation to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was a political maneuver.

During the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, "The bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons," according to the Illinois Leader.

2. Sinking Born Alive was about outmaneuvering that political maneuver.

Obama has this quote on his website:

Pam Sutherland … of … Illinois Planned Parenthood … told ABC News, "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive.' They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats. ..."
And the No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:

1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade.

During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade. ... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.
This was a lie on two points.

First, there was no such amendment.

Second, both definitions of "born alive" were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois' version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.

The federal paragraph (c) actually weakened the pro-abortion position by opening the possibility of giving legal status to preborn children, the opposite of Obama's contention:

Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.

At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically "encroach on Roe v. Wade"?

Obama was admitting he supported infanticide if that were true.

Muslims more Numerous than Catholics

We've covered the demographic changes in our world, particularly how they are affecting religious affiliation and trends.  The Drudge Report pointed me to this article.

Islam has overtaken Roman Catholicism as the biggest single religious denomination in the world, the Vatican said on Sunday.

Monsignor Vittorio Formenti, who compiled the Vatican's newly-released 2008 yearbook of statistics, said Muslims made up 19.2 percent of the world's population and Catholics 17.4 percent.

"For the first time in history we are no longer at the top: the Muslims have overtaken us," Formenti told Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano in an interview, saying the data referred to 2006.

He said that if all Christian groups were considered, including Orthodox churches, Anglicans and Protestants, then Christians made up 33 percent of the world's population -- or about 2 billion people.

The reason?

Formenti said that while the number of Catholics as a proportion of the world's population was fairly stable, the percentage of Muslims was growing because of higher birth rates.

Assimilation is a growing problem in Europe, where more secular residents are actually declining in population while the new Muslim immigrants set fertility records.  This could have a particularly interesting affect on Russia, where there are more abortions than live births.

Bridge to Nowhere or Great Idea?

VLADIMIR PUTIN, the Russian president, is to raise plans for a tunnel to link his country with America when he meets his US counterpart, George W Bush, next Sunday.

The 64-mile tunnel would run under the Bering Strait between Chukotka, in the Russian far east, and Alaska; the cost is estimated at £33 billion.

Roman Abramovich, the owner of Chelsea football club and governor of Chukotka, has invested £80m in the world’s largest drill but has denied that it is linked with the development.

Proposals for such a tunnel were approved by Tsar Nicholas II in the early 20th century but were abandoned during the Soviet era. If finally built, the tunnel would allow rail connections between London and New York.

Read the full article in the Times Online.

I am trying to decide what I think of this.  What do Veritas Rexers think?  Will it be a "bridge to nowhere" or a great idea?  Will it be like the "Big Dig", a government debacle costing many times more than estimates, or will it lead to greater economic development activity?

Let us know.

Wake up with humor

Very funny.

 

Why SDI is still important

Sunday Update:  You can add SDI to the Elections of 2000, 2004, and 2008 New Hampshire.  It's tests are RIGGED!!! (probably by Diebold folks!!)  I'm positively flattered folks, that Indiana Democrat Party part-time employee Thomas Cook over at Blue Indiana took some time away from theorizing about how John McCain RIGGED his signature count to deal with little old me.  BTW, the source for his facts?  A post on the nutroots weblog DailyKos (which at closer examination is one that he submitted himself)!  Now, I've always thought that Thomas was a little full of himself, but seriously.

However, the best part of all is this one.

The truth of the matter is that no terrorist organization in their right mind is going to try and shoot a nuclear missile at the United States. Why would they? They could much more easily just put it on a cargo container, ship it to the United States through one of our unguarded ports, and never risk the loss of their horrific goods. And yet, we spend billions a year on a missile defense system with no palpable results while our borders -- over both land and water -- wallow in disrepair.

This is the same ridiculous argument folks like Jen Wagner and others make about Voter ID.  You know the one- people cheat in elections all the time, but no way would they ever do so at the precinct.  Everybody's too honest!  So in the same way we get this ridiculous argument that terrorists will fly planes into the WTC, in fact they may even use nuclear weapons, but never (never ever) would they ever consider launching a weapon at anyone!  No, they are too rational.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 25th Anniversary of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative went by last week.  With the War in Iraq dominating national defense discussions, initiatives like SDI haven't been discussed as much as they should.  We've stopped focusing on the potential for Nuclear War with the likes of the USSR, and have been thinking more about smaller battles in deserts with terrorists.

But with terrorism on the rise and the break-up of the Soviet Union, the missile defense shield is more important than ever.  With rational nation-states controlling nuclear weapons we could rely on some sort of measured use of them.  But the proliferation of nuclear weapons is spreading to states like Iran, who support terrorism.  In addition, there have been a number of chilling reports about missing Soviet-bloc nuclear material.

Considering the possibility that some of this material could fall in the hands of less-rational terrorists, it makes good sense to continue to develop our missile defense shield.  Critics have suggested the missile defense to be an impossible technology to create, but recent tests have been encouraging. 

Generally, I believe in giving the government as little of my money as possible and putting it to tangible projects with easily measured results.  However, if government is to do one thing well, it's national defense.  One would have to be a far left peace nick to not see the benefit of having the ability to stop a nuclear weapon from destroying a US City.  So I'll continue to tolerate expenses in the form of defending me and my family from nuclear attack.

New leadership for the Evangelical movement?

A recent discussion in Washington DC about the future of the Evangelical movement brought to my attention an interesting organization, The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

From an article about the meeting:
 

Samuel Rodriguez, who heads the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, disagreed with Perkins, predicting the future of the evangelical movement will be "brown, prophetic and centered." He claims that via America's fastest growing demographic, "Latino evangelicals will reconcile the righteousness and justice platform with a bit of salsa and a couple more Taco Bells."

Pastor Rodriguez also argued that the agenda of evangelicals is broadening because in 50 years, the majority of evangelicals in America will be non-white. "That browning of the evangelical movement in America will reconcile ... righteousness, life and marriage issues with healthcare, immigration reform, education, poverty, [and] global warming," he continues. "Not only is it an ethnic transition -- or demographical shift -- but a trans-generational element ... the generations after the baby boomers -- they really repudiate the idea of trying to put in a box in the Christian right category the ethos of a entire belief system."

According to Rodriguez, although they reject the "religious right" label, Latino evangelicals are more committed than are white evangelicals to protecting life and traditional marriage.

I've long held that Hispanics belong on the Conservative side of the political aisle.  Most are very religious, many are Catholics.  After Bush won 40% of their vote in his campaigns, it was clear that they are not going to be the voting block for the liberals like the African American vote is.

Perhaps with McCain at the top of the ticket, Republicans will again win more of this vote in 2008.  And with continued growth from their demographic, it is entirely possible that Mr. Rodriguez's prediction will be true someday- that Hispanics will dominate the Christian right.

Our deadly enemies

Recently, at the Politics Online Conference run by GWU, I spent some time talking with a number of individuals from the left and some Paulistinians. 

Their position on the war on terror: "If we just stop intervening all over the world, particularly in the Middle East, then our enemies will have no reason to attack us."  The idea is that if we mind our own business, they will go away.  This argument goes hand in hand with the "Bush is a bully.  When he's gone we'll just meet with all these dictators and peace will come."

I don't know how they reconcile that view with reality.

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden threatened the European Union with grave punishment on Wednesday for publication of cartoons mocking Islam's Prophet Mohammad.

In an audio recording posted on the Internet coinciding with the birthday of Islam's founder, bin Laden said the drawings, considered offensive by Muslims, were part of a "new crusade" in which Pope Benedict was involved.

"Your publications of these drawings -- part of a new crusade in which the Pope of the Vatican had a significant role -- is a confirmation from you that the war continues," said the Saudi-born militant leader, addressing "those who are wise at the European Union".

You are "testing Muslims ... the answer will be what you shall see and not what you hear."

Don't they realize that our enemies are deadly, and they are willing to kill over CARTOONS!?  Our enemies aren't rational, thoughtful human beings.  They are deadly, hateful people who want to kill us.  They won't go away when we get out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. 

No, then they'll hate us because some newspaper criticizes Mohamed.  Or they'll hate us because our flag has stars and stripes or because our President meets with some foreign leader they don't like.

Our enemies won't stop until their brand of deadly religious extremism has covered our world in blood.  If the left can't see that, they and their political allies aren't fit to defend our country.

Will Obama bring racial change?

It's been a bad couple of weeks for Barack Obama.  In recent days, voters have been focused on coverage of Barack Obama's preacher and his anti-American, anti-white remarks (I have been in Los Angeles, sorry- but, now I am back).  It's raised the larger issue of Obama's race and has dove-tailed poorly (for him) with his wife's remarks that "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country" and Obama's failure to salute the flag.

For me, the problem for Obama regarding race is that he doesn't bring change.  He brings more of the same.  He re-packages ideas from the '60s in great rhetoric, but we still get more race politics.  He continues to fight for the great delusion, propagated by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rev. Wright and others that the greatest friend to minorities are the liberal leaders of our country.

Obama's speech, given yesterday to try to end the issue, made a number of good points about race in our society and was remarkably even-handed, but Obama also resorted to the same talking points on racism from the left.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations.  That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.  And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

If Obama is simply highlighting the challenges that black people face, then I agree with these sentiments.  But what we really need is an acknowledgment from liberals that many of these problems are of our own making and have nothing to do with race?  Are the Indianapolis Public School's struggles a result of racism?  I don't think so.  Is the answer a funding system that favors black schools in Indiana?  No. 

I am refreshed that Obama seems to at least recognize that the very programs set up by liberals to favor poor families have instead eroded them- particularly black families.  I hold out hope that perhaps he sees that the real problem is that the liberals who supposedly fight for minorities continue to destroy their families with entitlement policies.  But I am discouraged because Obama's policies don't free these families, they simply fight for more government intervention earlier in these people's lives, not less.  In fact, Obama wants government education programs starting at age 0.

What we really need, for real change for those minorities who feel oppressed, is new leaders and a new vision.  We need a call for an ownership society, not more government intervention to right the wrongs of the Civil War or Jim Crow.  We need to create more opportunities for minorities, not demand more equality in outcomes.  We need to encourage each individual to excel by teaching personal responsibility and discourage them from the habit of blaming others for their problems (which is a problem plaguing all races in the 21st Century).

With this kind of change we could see true reform of those institutions which are hurting poor or disadvantaged minorities.